Chapter 78 Section 5 Theory of Criminal Behavior Cycle

We could argue endlessly about the exact relationship between crime, welfare dependency, and family breakdown.There is value in doing more research in this area.Now, there is no doubt that most professionals agree that there is some relationship between the above three, and it is extremely important.And I presume there is no doubt in the minds of those of us. Take the major topic of juvenile delinquency as an example.In any response, reducing juvenile delinquency is not only of obvious importance to reducing crime as a whole, but is also crucial in stopping an emerging criminal career in time before it develops into serious crime or recidivism.Discussions of the "causes" of juvenile delinquency versus adult delinquency often run into generalization dead ends.People generally tend to think that human nature is inherently evil, and that evil has many opportunities to manifest itself.Indeed, there is something we can do to reduce the chances of crime with crime prevention measures such as "neighborhood watch".But in a more mobile world (where it is easier for criminals to remain anonymous and escape) and a more prosperous world (where there is more to steal), these countermeasures are bound to have limited effectiveness.Furthermore; while crime prevention may reduce "opportunistic" crime, it may only divert persistent and repeat offenders from one area to another.As a result, crime prevention is now increasingly focused on the individual—the actual or potential offender—rather than the natural environment in which the crime occurs.

Research conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom sheds light on the relationship between crime, welfare-dependent thinking, and family breakdown.British research has linked juvenile delinquency to mental retardation, impulsivity and mischief at school.As for the background, the common factors appear to be low income and poor housing conditions.The parents of these annoying children are either prone to wrong discipline or lax supervision of their children.In short, they either don't care about their children, or they are hot and cold or they don't care enough.They may have been separated or divorced or became mothers as teenagers and committed criminal offenses in the home.A small number of boys become habitual offenders and continue to do so as adults, posing a real criminal threat.They obviously share the same traits, but are generally more extreme.

Of course, this analysis is not meant to "prove" the "causes" of crime in general terms, but to enable one to predict crime trends and - much more difficult - to act on them early on.But it's clearly consistent with the idea that welfare dependency (which I think is more relevant than "poverty") and family upbringing are crucial to understanding what crime rates have been like over the past 30 years. It can be seen more clearly from the research evidence in the United States. In 1988, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services conducted a survey of more than 600,000 children's families across the country, and found that children who lived with mothers who had never married or divorced, except those children with very high family income, were less likely to be in school. Very prone to trouble, emotional and behavioral problems.The latest five-year survey conducted by the Federal Bureau of Justice on prisoners in prisons shows that two-thirds of long-term violent criminals and half of all prisoners are from non-parental families, and 37% of all prisoners are from foster families or child care.More than half of long-term violent offenders said they had a close relative who had served time in prison.So Keith, Joseph's "cycle of poverty" became "cycle of crime".Evidence regarding long-term violent offenders is particularly important, as this group is considered by the public to pose the greatest threat.

In a free society, there are limits to what government can do to change the behavior of people, especially the behavior of families.As the state must have largely intervened on the basis of insufficient intelligence and without proper consideration of long-term effects.Therefore, many difficult problems will be faced.But creating a cultural, fiscal, and legal framework that preserves, rather than destroys, the ethos and institutions on which liberty rests is not only appropriate to a free society, it is essential to that society. So, what to do?In order to make improvements rather than fantasies, I propose the following four methods, while not denying that the rich minds of social scientists and policymakers may come up with other effective methods.